Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />deSig~e~ltor those parcels with preliminary <br />greater than the off-farm water pumping costs. <br /> <br />re-evaluated, added to the facilities cost, <br /> <br />preliminary payment capacity. <br /> <br />payment capacities <br />The pumping cost was <br />and compared to the <br /> <br />To complete the PIA analysis, the cropping pattern and payment <br /> <br /> <br />capacities were reviewed by the economist taking into account the <br /> <br /> <br />practicality of the cropping pattern for the particular parcel and <br />any agronomic costs that might be particular to the parcel. Several <br />iterations of this process between the economist and the engineer <br /> <br />were sometimes necessary in order to develop the most economical <br /> <br /> <br />parcel and facilities layout. Those parcels that still exhibited <br /> <br /> <br />positive residual payment capacity after these further analyses were <br /> <br /> <br />then determined to be practicably irrigable. <br /> <br />D.2 SELECTION OF PARCELS FOR OFF-FARM DESIGN <br />Parcels to be considered for PIA analysis were identified in the Task <br />B Report along with on-farm irrigation costs. The Task B report <br />identified irrigation costs for handmove sprinkler, sideroll <br />sprinkler, gravity (furrow or basin), center pivot, and center pivot <br />with sprinkler in the corners. Computer tabulation compared on- <br /> <br />farm irrigation costs to the crop payment capacity for an <br /> <br />alfalfa/barley crop rotation. <br /> <br />The first step in making this task analysis was determination of the <br /> <br /> <br />presently irrigated lands on Southern Ute Indian lands. W. W. <br /> <br /> <br />Wheeler & Associates, Inc., hydrology consultant, identified from <br /> <br />2 <br />